CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carter

The defendant, a general manager at Comfort Inn in Jamestown, was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree for stealing money from the motel's cash receipts. The defendant appealed, arguing that a moral certainty instruction for circumstantial evidence should have been given. The court disagreed, citing direct evidence from a co-worker who witnessed the defendant taking money and the defendant's own admission of taking funds for rent. Additionally, there was direct evidence that the defendant entered erroneous check amounts in the motel's ledger. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision not to issue a circumstantial evidence charge with the 'moral certainty' standard, as the evidence presented was both direct and circumstantial.

Grand LarcenyCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMoral Certainty InstructionAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceTheftEmployee MisconductTrial Court Error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cyr v. Bero Construction Corp.

The case concerned an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a truck driver, Mr. Cyr, who died in 1975 from an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. The Board had affirmed that the aneurysm and its rupture were causally related to an industrial accident Mr. Cyr suffered in 1965. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the medical opinion supporting causal relation, specifically from Dr. Rizzuto, lacked sufficient certainty. The court, referencing legal precedents like Matott v Ward, clarified that expert medical testimony must signify a probability supported by a rational basis, not necessarily 'reasonable medical certainty.' Upon reviewing Dr. Rizzuto's testimony, the court found it met this standard, confirming the causal relationship, and thus affirmed the Board's decisions.

Aortic AneurysmCausal RelationIndustrial AccidentDeath Benefits ClaimExpert Medical TestimonyMedical Certainty StandardWorkers' Compensation AppealsProbative ForceMedical Opinion ProbabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kihl v. Pfeffer

Plaintiff Merryl Kihl was injured in a car accident in 1995, sustaining ankle and C2 vertebra fractures, and subsequently developed chronic pain. She sued Karl O. Pfeffer (driver) and County of Nassau (road design). A jury found both defendants negligent, apportioning 13% fault to Pfeffer and 87% to the County. Kihl was awarded significant damages for past and future pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earnings. The County appealed, seeking to reduce the jury's award for future medication expenses via a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 (c). The Supreme Court denied the reduction, finding the County failed to establish with "reasonable certainty" that Kihl's husband's health insurance would cover future medication costs, citing factors like Finnell's job insecurity, changing benefits, the strained marriage, and Kihl's uninsurability. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, upholding the jury's damage awards and the denial of the collateral source reduction, emphasizing the strict construction of CPLR 4545 (c) and the high "reasonable certainty" standard of proof.

Collateral Source RuleCPLR 4545 (c)Reasonable Certainty StandardFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal Injury DamagesJury VerdictsAppellate ReviewHealth Insurance CoverageSpousal DependencyEconomic Loss
References
62
Case No. ADJ9635767
Regular
Jun 27, 2016

TOBY WILSON vs. KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Toby Wilson's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found applicant's attorney engaged in misconduct by raising new issues, misrepresenting facts, and relying on inadmissible evidence. Medical evidence failed to establish a work-related causation for the claimed left shoulder and hand injury due to inconsistencies and lack of medical certainty. The applicant did not meet her burden of proof, and the Board adopted the WCJ's report in its entirety.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABKaiser PermanenteAthens AdministratorsToby WilsonFletcher Bernard BrownWCJ reportAppeals Board Rule 10842(a)sanctionsADJ9635767
References
0
Case No. ADJ548925 (MON 0313676) ADJ2470845 (MON 0313677)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

Barry Robey vs. HERTZ CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a lower decision that awarded unapportioned permanent disability. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) apportionment of 50% of the applicant's left hip disability to a non-industrial arthritic condition was substantial medical evidence, despite the WCJ's finding that the AME's reasoning was "arbitrary." The Board emphasized that AME opinions on apportionment need only be based on reasonable medical probability, not certainty, and that the AME sufficiently explained his reasoning.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityNon-industrial CausationLabor Code Section 4663
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agresti v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured when an improvised scaffold collapsed, causing a wooden plank to fall and strike him in the head. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the defendants. It was found that the makeshift scaffold was inadequate as a safety device and the harm flowed directly from the force of gravity. The court also determined that the lack of certainty regarding the accident's exact preceding events or the failure to pinpoint a specific defect in the scaffold did not warrant denying the motion for summary judgment.

Scaffold collapseWorkplace injuryLabor Law violationSummary judgmentAppellate decisionConstruction accidentGravity-related incidentSafety deviceLiabilityNew York jurisprudence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1977

Claim of Wall v. Premium Transport Service

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that found a carrier failed to prove an employer had a good faith belief in a claimant's previous permanent impairment, thus discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, determining that the employer's uncontradicted testimony provided a sufficient factual basis for their belief in the permanency of the claimant's prior injuries. The court cited precedents indicating that an employer does not require precise medical knowledge or certainty for a good faith belief. The case was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Special Disability FundPermanent ImpairmentEmployer's Good Faith BeliefSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemandPrior InjuryCarrier LiabilityWorkers’ Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mazayoff v. A.C.V.L. Companies, Inc.

Claimant, a security guard, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying benefits for bronchial asthma, which he attributed to work conditions like car fumes and extreme temperatures. The Board found no causally related injury or occupational disease. The appellate court affirmed, stating the Board's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence. Two physicians, Alan Schecter and Jonathan Sumner, concluded that claimant's asthma could not be determined with medical certainty to be caused by his work environment, despite potential exacerbation. The court upheld the Board's deference in resolving conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationBronchial AsthmaOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSecurity GuardEnvironmental Conditions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hamilton

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the second and third degrees and scheme to defraud, stemming from a fraudulent 'investment club' where he promised co-workers significant returns on investments. The defendant appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish larcenous intent and larceny by false promise. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, which showed the defendant never opened investor accounts, used the money for personal debts, and fled to California when pressed by investors. The court concluded that these facts established to a moral certainty that the defendant never intended to fulfill his promises, thus affirming the judgment of conviction.

Grand LarcenyScheme to DefraudInvestment Club FraudLarceny by False PromiseCriminal IntentSufficiency of EvidencePromissory FraudAppellate ReviewConviction AffirmedPenal Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merton Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.

The Merton Company, Ltd. sued PepsiCo Inc. for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Merton alleged that PepsiCo's representatives, through vague statements, induced them to produce toy components for a 'Pepsi Gang' promotional project, for which Merton was never paid. The court, applying British contract law based on New York conflict of law principles, found no enforceable contract due to a lack of certainty and essential terms. Furthermore, it determined that no 'special relationship' existed between Merton and PepsiCo to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of PepsiCo.

Contract DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationInternational BusinessCorporate LiabilityConflict of LawsBritish LawHong Kong LawDue DiligenceAgencyPromotional Products
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 30 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational